I can reassure you, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not another type of Facebook. The 'mood bar' that asked you how you are is to help find problems with the editing process and make it easier to welcome new users.

So, welcome! Thanks for your edit!

—Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide some citations for the additions you made to the article on Lviv.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you added information cited to "Buchowski", but did not add any more info about this source -- it is a book or an article? what's the title? when was it published? how one could find this source and verify the information? Can you add the full citation to the source? Preferably using the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} template. Thanks! Renata (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are still doing it -- adding abbreviated references without also adding the full citation. Please fix. Examples Kingdom of Lithuania, Pact of Vilnius and Radom, History of Vilnius (1), History of Vilnius (2), Skirgaila, Tokhtamysh. Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you added frost to the articles - thank you, but you have cited other books as well - "Halperin" in Tokhtamysh, Januszewska-Jurkiewicz & Mačiulis, Staliūnas & Stankeras in History of Vilnius. Please add those citations as well. Renata (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Michał Węsławski, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Michał Węsławski, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by א 543182677 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mikołaj Hussowczyk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zubr. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer both of you at once here. Pofka and Itzhak Rosenberg.

According to the studies of Jerzy Suchocki ^[1] at the turn of 14th-15th century 97% of the office helders in GDL were ethnic Lithuanians, in the mid of 15th century the percentage of Ruthenians jumped to 19%, in the 2nd half it was 37% and at the beginning of the next century 41%. So as you can see basically after the death of Vytautas the influence of Ruthenian elite was growning steadily. Maybe they weren't allowed to live in a castle complex, but surely they were living in the city.

Pofka try to hold your horses because I will have to report your behaviour, don't blame of sentiments I do not have - I never said anything anti-Lithuanian or humilated Lithuanian language, don't say anything like that again.

I didn't say that Jogaila prefered Ruthenian over Lithuanian, I just said that he surely knew both. That's all. And actually it's probable that he didn't learn Polish, I think he was fully able to comunicate with Polish lords in Ruthenian.

Itzhak Rosenberg I don't think we can't talk about some tensions between ethnically Lithuanian and Ruthenian great families after the Union of Lublin, they were all pretty much polonised and formed together political nation of Ukraine. But certainly there was many Ruthenian powerful nobles on the territory of GDL after Lublin Marcelus (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting source, unfortunately, I can't access it anywhere... The numbers are fascinating, yet at the start of the 16th century, there were still sizeable Ruthenian lands that were part of GDL, most of which was ceded to Poland after the Lublin Union (let's remember that Lithuania Propria's lands in modern-day Belarus are often overlooked). Of course, there were Ruthenians, but the Lithuanian element in the Ruthenian lands of Ukraine naturally decreased over time, as I know for sure they often married into the local nobility, so over a few generations, they practically became locals.

I would be wary talking about the political nation of Ukraine, because from what I understand, a somewhat sovereign Ukraine started with the Cossack Hetmanate and they were very against the szlachta, which is very understandable considering their relations and how they already had many previous Cossack uprisings.

Considering the smaller size of GDL post-Lublin, the Lithuanian nobility dominated the state once more, although with increased Ruthenian involvement relative to the times of Vytautas the Great. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you pdf of the article if you want. You cannot deny the existence of the influential Ruthenian elite since the beginning - 14th century in both the Crown and Grand Duchy Marcelus (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will not discuss anything serious with a person who purposefully presents Ruthenian and Polish languages names of the Lithuanian CoA as superior, "accurate" and absolutely excludes the Lithuanian names. All names of the CoA of Lithuania are listed here: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Origins of the word Vytis and other names without excluding any, thus we do not attempt to present any languages as irrelevant, unlike you. Your anti-Lithuanian opinion was more than clear when you excluded Waikymas / Vytis. The Lithuanians did not created article named Waikymas or Vytis and did not presented these names as exclusively "accurate names", like you did. I have better things to do than discuss anti-Lithuanian sentiment again and again. Have a good day, -- Pofka (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vytis is 19th century neologism, Waikymas isn't the name of the CoA. Marcelus (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what Discretionary Sanction mean? Why I am being sanctioned? What are the consequences of the sanction? Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your questions here to reduce confusion. Please read the message careful. I also strongly suggest you read the linked guidance. As the message clearly says "it does not imply there are any issues with your contributions to date". Therefore you are not being sanctioned. The alert simply notifies you there are a special set of rules that apply to edits in the Balkans or Eastern Europe topic areas. This means you have to take extra care when editing in the area. This would likely include any and all edits to Romualdas Giedraitis as well as any discussion about the article. If your edits are a problem you may be sanctioned at the discretion of any administrator (which is not me). The sanctions available include blocks, page or topic bans and more bespoke restrictions such as a harder bright line restriction on reverts than the normal 3.If you edits are not a problem you have nothing to worry about. But I'd note several editors at ANI have raised concerns over your edits including at least one uninvolved administrator, so you really need to make sure you are complying with our policies and guidelines. Do take on board any advice you receive, especially from uninvolved editors like at ANI, but also from editors involved in any dispute you get in to. To be clear, I make no judgment whether your edits are a problem. I'm simply informing you that you need to make sure they are not a problem in the future since long term problems in the Balkans and Eastern Europe topic areas means we are less tolerant of problems there and have special rules making it easier to sanction you if your edits are a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thank you for your answer Marcelus (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for creating Adam Alfred Plater. Is it based on material translated from another wiki? If so there is a template I need to add to the talk page. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: It's a translation of mine article from Polish wiki. Thanks for the strawberries! Marcelus (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. You’ll see I’ve added a translation template to the talk page. Please add this on future pages if you reuse material as we need to have proper attribution of the text for copyright reasons. All the best Mccapra (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having a real life issues at the moment. I’ll come back to our dilemma when (if) I come back. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, wish you well Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome Marcelus/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demographic history of the Vilnius region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Rosenbaum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancestors of John Gielgud has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw you post on the talk page of an IP user that they are vandalizing a page that you watch, and I’m also dealing with vandalism from that same user. I would greatly appreciate it if you could report them as you threatened to as I don’t know how to do that. All I know how to do is ask for page protection. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VictimOfEntropy: I am still hoping he stops his conduct, but I am planning to report him if he won't Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: It looks like we still haven’t gotten any word from him, and my request for page protection was denied. Unfortunately, the issue is compounded by the fact that, by undoing the restoration edit I did, this user is also restoring false information that another user put on the page every time, so it’s been made to look like there’s a dispute there when there isn’t. I just wish I could get a reassurance that that isn’t going to happen again. I’m wondering if I should just go ahead and add what our vandal wanted to add to the page just in case that would stop him from reverting everything. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and altered the page in a way that one of the things he wanted to be added could be added. There’s nothing I can justifiably do about the category that’s only meant for real people, not fictional characters, though. Hopefully the page won’t be messed up again.

I think your threat to report him may well have been what cooled him down long enough for me to find a way to make that edit he wanted to the page. Thank you for that. Let’s hope that he won’t vandalize the Hannibal Lecter page or the page that you’re watching again. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VictimOfEntropy: No problem, let's hope that was the end of it Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ignacy Korwin-Milewski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludwik de Laveaux.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the thread you started at Marina Ovsyannikova, and what I initially wrote there I want to write here instead: "There is a strong possibility that the whole action was orchestrated" is a borderline WP:BLP violation. Please be more cautious in the future about what you write about living people on Wikipedia. Generally, avoid making any statements about a living person unless you link to a reliable source in the statement. If the statement is negative or controversial about the living person, then never make it unless you link to reliable sources supporting the allegation. You asked what specific rule you violated; please read the introduction to WP:BLP. Levivich 19:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I did not write anything in her biographical article. The whole situation is in a state of war, and we should be particularly careful because Russian propaganda is active and most capable of organising such actions. We are bombarded with fake news from every side, constantly, and the same goes for the Ukrainian side. Sometimes it is better to write nothing at all than to allow space for a controlled narrative.Marcelus (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction to WP:BLP it explains that BLP policy applies to any page, including talk pages (including this page). Levivich 19:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcelus :) I noticed your work in your sandbox, more precisely the section Lord families in 15th century Lithuania in User:Marcelus/sandbox2#Lord_families_in_15th_century_Lithuania. Because finding Lithuanian-language names could be very time-consuming for you, I thought that perhaps I could offer to add the Lithuanian-language names next to the Polish-language ones you have already written down. It's totally up to you, I myself would be very sceptical of allowing others to edit my sandbox, but I thought you might appreciate my suggestion.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cukrakalnis:Ok, I don't see any problem. I don't where I will go with it, but I'll probably create some list/table at some point Marcelus (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Ignacy Korwin-Milewski, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC) R[reply]

Piotrus Thanks for all the advice, I'll certainly reconsider feauturing it on DYK Marcelus (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)@[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Ignacy Korwin-Milewski, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Olshansky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marienburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ignacy Korwin-Milewski at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --haha169 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, it has been four weeks since this was posted, and you have yet to respond. If you wish to pursue this nomination, you need to start work on addressing the issues raised right away. If you haven't responded within seven days, it is likely that the nomination will be marked for closure. I hope to see a post there from you soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Ok, sorry about that, I completely forget and was busy overall. I'm going to do that right away Marcelus (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the article Romualdas Giedraitis → Romuald Giedroyć on January 18 when there was no WP:CONSENSUS to do that, as stated in the closure of the discussion on the talk page on November 5, about which you definitely knew, as you wrote to the closing person on his talk page later that day. Your move is a clear and conscious breach of Wikipedia guidelines and practices. If you do not undo your move to the WP:STABLE name of Romualdas Giedraitis, this will go to WP:MR.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis: Since the general discussion about Polish-Lithuanian names is leading to nothing, maybe starting new discussion isn't a bad idea. Romualdas Giedraitis wasn't a stable version, because it was contested since the beginning.Marcelus (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about starting a new discussion. It's about you not following Wikipedia's guidelines and practices. Romualdas Giedraitis was the WP:STABLE version, which is defined as The stable version is the most recent revision of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war.. The article had the name Romualdas Giedraitis from 15:48 October 8 to 17:41 October 9, and was edited by four different editors (us two, and two others). This counts as it being as the WP:STABLE version. As you haven't reverted your move which went against Wiki guidelines, this goes to WP:MR. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article never had a stable version. It was contested since the beginning by me, the move request was created on October 9. If you want to move it to W:MR I don't mind. There is no reason why this person should be called with anything than his actual name. Marcelus (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article never had a stable version. You are in denial. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't gone through them line by line, but you have definitely cleared up a couple of matters that were puzzling me. The city name I couldn't find was apparently a transliteration problem, for example, and you have shed some light on the identity of Commander Ren, who comes up again a bit further down. I would welcome any further help that you have the time to offer, especially if you speak Polish, Russian or Ukrainian. One question about the deletion though--I agree that this was not when they first appeared, and I am not sure why this was there. I suspect that this may have originated as POV on the Ukrainian wikipedia. In any event, my question is whether the source is any good, or if you can tell. I am a bit hampered by having learned about World War 2 in French and English. Thanks for your assistance, and yes, while I have so far edited quite cautiously, knowing what I don't know, it is definitely a work in progress, but this is true of most translations from other wikipedia. Thanks again, feel free to do more. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you did re-use it 01:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that you or ‎BetsyRMadison have required knowledge and access to sources to actually rewrite the whole article? Reading your comments are seriously doubt it Marcelus (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: I don't know if I need to alert you on this, but I wanted to let you know that I had to revert one of your edits for what appear to be copyright issues. I feel the copyright issue should be discussed before anyone reverts it. Also, I agree with @Elinruby: other than the potential copyright issue, your other edits look good, thanks for all your input! Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison Could you please sign your comment -->[1], thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison That is so sound and beautifully formatted comment you left on that discussion page [2] but you are wrong I’m afraid. There are no copy rights issues.

What was missing is your signature. I signed it for you [3]. Is that okay with you BetsyRMadison? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus maybe re-write that a little more to fully satisfy Betsy’s M concerns. Especially number 5.- GizzyCatBella🍁 05:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella yeah I will re-write it a bit, next time ‎BetsyRMadison do it yourself if you find one paragraph to be too similiar to something else, don't need to make a fuss about it Marcelus (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: I did do it myself. I know wikipedia takes copyright infringement very, very seriously. Also, you forgot to source your sources - but I'm not sure those sources you used are considered RS for wiki standards for this. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do yourself? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way @Marcelus: I feel that any further discussion on this potential copyright issue should be discussed on the article's Talk Page so that other editors can give their input. Thanks & best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not ok. Don't do it again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what? Marcelus (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BetsyRMadison you formatted that comment [4] exceptionally well, in perfect English, with green text format you never used before, except today. How much time did you spent to draft it? I would probably just fix the issue (if any) myself instead of writing all of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk whenever you want about whatever you want Marcelus (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ignacy Korwin-Milewski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ignacy Korwin-Milewski amassed a collection of more than 200 paintings by Polish artists, one of the largest private collections of contemporary Polish art at the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ignacy Korwin-Milewski. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ignacy Korwin-Milewski), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivulskis died in 01 10 1919, before Vilnius was occupied by the Polish (April 19, 1919) (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_offensive), thus he died in Lithuania, not in Poland. Please stop editing the article incorrectly. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokek (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokek: First of all Vilnius was never occupied by Poland. Secondly Wiwulski died defending the city against Bolsheviks in the ranks of the Polish army, so ex definitione the city was controlled by Polish troops. If don't want to write Poland there, then you should write "Russia" instead. It certainly wasn't part of the Lithuanian state Marcelus (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NPOV WP:RS, Vilnius was occupied by Poland in 1919 and then from 1920 to 1939. Numerous WP:RS state that, and denying that is wrong.

Arriving on April 18, the Poles occupied Vilnius, effecting the call to occupy the city and unify it with Poland that the Sejm passed on April 4. (p291, International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives · Volume 1)

Having occupied Vilnius, the Poles issued appeals for federation addressed in Pilsudski's words to "the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania," promising them "the possibility of resolving internal, national and religious problems on their own without any kind of coercion or pressure from Poland." (p54, Stalin and the Struggle for Supremacy in Eurasia)

When the Polish Army occupied the Vilnius region, the German authorities discontinued the repatriation of Lithuanian POWs, worrying they would likely be recruited into the Polish Army to be used against the retreating Germans. (Fragmentation in East Central Europe: Poland and the Baltics, 1915-1929)

1st Legion Div and Zaniemensk Cav Grp stormed Lida on 17 Apr, and Belina Cav Grp occupied Vilnius on the 21st. (p17, Armies of the Russo-Polish War 1919-21)

...Poles occupied the Vilnius area in April... (p53, Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland)

Polish troops seize Vilnius on 9 October and it will remain under Polish occupation until autumn 1939. (p13, Baltic Cities)

Lithuania was forced to withdraw from Vilnius on January 3, 1919, under threat from the Soviets. (p290, International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives · Volume 1) So, on 1st January 1919, Vilnius was in fact part of Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis: Describing legal position of Vilnius in relation to Poland in interwar period as "occupation" is literally Lithuanian POV (that was Lithuanian political stance in that time, not shared but vast majority of the international community, so every source who claims that isn't W:NPOV per definition Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not understand NPOV, because you've denied something that fulfills the criteria of NPOV. From WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Ergo, as demonstrated with the numerous international WP:RS from before, but also in this message, saying that Vilnius was occupied by Poles is absolutely according to Wikipedia guidelines, and thus denying that occupation is a violation of WP:NPOV. It's all a question of WP:Verifiability and WP:RS, nothing more, nothing less.

You cannot cite contemporary approval from the international community as justification for dismissing modern scholarship, that is illogical and irrelevant. The WP:NPOV is that, as written in the article Suwałki Agreement, In most cases historians tend to summarise the issue by saying that the agreement assigned Vilnius to Lithuania and Polish attack violated it. Moreover, it is hypocritical to cite later international approval for the consequences of an act that was internationally criticized at the time (as evidenced from Soon after the mutiny, Léon Bourgeois, President of the Council of the League of Nations, expressed strong disapproval, asserting that Żeligowski's actions were a violation of the engagements entered into with the Council of the League of Nations, and demanding the immediate Polish evacuation of the city.). Appealing to international approval is self-defeating, because Polish actions were criticized by the international community as well. Sources and nothing else is what defines whether something is NPOV or not, not comtemporary views or etc. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, but it looks like you're the one using terms you don't know the meaning of. Marcelus (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited regarding the Polish occupation of Vilnius were international WP:RS and considering the number of them saying it, this fulfills the part of the definition of WP:NPOV which is ''significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". You, on the other hand, have provided zero RS, have not adequately explained any mistakes in what I have said and your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny, as contemporary diplomacy is not sufficient to dismiss what is written in modern scholarship. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of having a discussion with you on this issue, moreover you have interjected yourself into a discussion with another user. I warn that any attempt to promote a false, one-sided vision of history will be removed. Vilnius was not occupied, it was a normal part of Poland, just like Poznan or Krakow before WWII. Occupation means temporary, military rule. There was no such thing. Marcelus (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule on Wikipedia forbidding the action that you deem as such: you have interjected yourself into a discussion with another user. Other users have entered into discussion on my talk page without invitation, it's not forbidden at all.

As for any attempt to promote a false, one-sided vision of history will be removed, that is an absolute misportrayal. It is false to label all of these WP:RS:

• International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives · Volume 1,
• Stalin and the Struggle for Supremacy in Eurasia,
• Fragmentation in East Central Europe: Poland and the Baltics, 1915-1929,
• Armies of the Russo-Polish War 1919-21,
• Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland,
• Baltic Cities

as promoting a false, one-sided version of history, as you have just done. As they state, Vilnius was occupied, and the only reason you reject them, is because they state something you refuse to admit, nothing else.

Your logic regarding occupations is also unreasonable, as the same can be said for the lands that were occupied following the Partitions of the PLC also. After all, Poznań was a normal city of the Kingdom of Prussia from 1795-1806 and then from 1848-1918. Kraków was a normal part in the Habsburg Empire from 1795-1809 and again from 1846-1918. Does that mean there was no occupation? Of course not. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not interested in having this conversation with at this moment. Also I don't claim, and I don't think many people claim, that Kraków was occupied by Austria, it was a normal city just like Prague or Zagreb of AH Empire. It doesn't mean it was a Polish city and for Polish patriots it should be part of independent Poland. I don't know why you conflate those two things. You can make a case that Warsaw or Vilnius was occupied by Russia for some period of time after January Uprising, because there was a military rule there at that time. Marcelus (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Litwin means Lithuanian and not Polish? Within the article Antanas Mackevičius, you keep adding this source:

• Okulicz, Kazimierz (1965). "Białorusini, Litwini i Polacy w powstaniu styczniowym na Litwie historycznej" [Belarusians, Lithuanians and Poles in the January Uprising in historical Lithuania] (PDF). Zeszyty Historyczne. 7: 9, 12. "Litwin - ks. Mackiewicz" (p.9) [Lithuanian - Fr. Mackevičius]; "Litwin pochodzenia polskiego" (p.12) [Lithuanian of Polish origins]

as a reference for something it does not say, which goes against Wikipedia core content policy of WP:Verifiability. The source calls Mackevičius Lithuanian, not Polish (see the quotes from the source), but you keep adding it as a reference for something it does not say. Either revert your latest edit where you use it as a source for falsely calling him Polish or I will be forced to report your misconduct, because I see no other way to end that WP:Editwar. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's third source you are trying to remove, maybe there is something wrong with what you are doing? Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not the third source I removed. I removed only one - the zw.lt news article (removed, because it was an unknown news agency making a claim that all academic sources go against). Another, the Polskie Radio 24 news article, was put in a note, because it was a minority view from an unacademic source. It was not removed, it is still in the article. Third, this source by Okulicz calls him Lithuanian and not Polish-Lithuanian. I have not removed it, it remains in the article. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Antanas Mackevičius) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marcelus,

Rather than emptying out a category so that it is deleted as a CSD C1 empty category (which is called "emptying out of process"), if you believe a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please nominate it at Categories for Discussion. Each category is part of a category hierarchy, or tree, and the reasons you have for wanting it to be deleted could be extended to other, similar categories at the same time. If they are no longer useful, it's easier to discuss deleting, renaming or merging categories of a similar type at the same time or the editors who frequent CFD can often locate earlier CFD discussions where these decisions were made so that there is some consistency. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Marcelus (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcelus, would you be able to take another look at Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)/GA1? Best, CMD (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]